http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-21806911

There you go. A threesome can make a baby.

It's more like taking two eggs and switching the yolks, without frying them first!

I'm harsh on this. There are enough people in the world and enough children waiting for adoption as it is. I don't think we should have IVF at all, certainly not on the NHS at tax payers expense.

Especially when the NHS is being squeezed financially. Though I can understand why people want children of their own.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

We as a society have come to believe that not being able to have children is a 'fault' that needs to be 'fixed'. Once we believe that, then childlessness becomes like an injury in an accident or a disease - we treat it because getting the best for ourselves as individuals is generally (for the non-super-rich) best served by giving the best we can to everyone. Thus, not being able to have children is something we assume collective responsibility for, on the basis that we also may at some point suffer from some congenital problem that we need the help of others to free us from.

So we give people IVF, because we one day may have cancer or parkinson's and we don't want to be told 'it's not in the common interest for us to treat you'.

This is the bargain we as a society have made. Personally, I don't think it's that bad a deal; it's enlightened self-interest. There are things the NHS does that I'm never going to need but I pay for them on the basis that the NHS also does some thing that at some point I damn well am going to need and if the NHS picks and chooses at every point, one day I'm going to be on the wrong side of such a decision.

The economic reality of course is that the NHS does not have infinite finances and some times it does choose. It can't make everyone happy all the time but successful IVF makes three people happy for the price of one so I can't say I'm vehemently opposed to it.

I agree with the point about adoption though. For many prospective parents, adoption should be higher up the list of possible options than IVF.

There are too many people on the planet anyway. Unless we're breeding a race of super humans with telepathy, telekinesis or the ability to fly (I'll take keen detection skills at a push) I'm not quite so interested.

There are too many people. In particular, too many poor people who have many children despite not being able to feed even them. Maybe they should all be sterilised, since that would massively reduce suffering and death. As would forced sterilisation of all known carriers of genetic disease.

I find it's best not to cast judgement over who should and shouldn't have children. It upsets people, no matter how sound the logic.

Personally I find it quite interesting from a purely scientific point of view. The cost of this procedure is less than cancer treatment, and far less common, so it's pretty insignificant on the grand scale of things. My only real concern is how any child will cope with being called "a freak".

Unless people were told, how would they know?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

It's unlikely to be successfully kept secret from the child and everyone she meets at school. The truth usually comes out in the end.

In other words, people will be told so they will know.

You make it sound like something they should be ashamed of. Why would it need to be 'a secret'? There are thousands of people in the UK and probably millions of people throughout the world that exist because of IVF and similar techniques. How on earth is there any stigma about it?

Yes, the child may get teased at school. This will be an experience completely unique to it, and won't happen to any other children in their class that might happen to be short. or tall. or fat. or thin. or wear glasses. or have ginger hair. or have a second name that sounds somewhat like a rude word.

Jon

Some people most definitely will find a stigma associated with what they say as unethical meddling with human DNA.

A human assembled from three sets of DNA for the first time in a lab will be totally unique. Ginger kids may be teased, but they're unlikely to be called "unholy abominations", "genetic monsters" or "mutant freak let's find out what colour your blood is".

Yes but for most IVF most people will have no idea. We all know about Louise Brown because she was the worlds first, but can anyone remember anyone else? I can't. Also IVF is usually a family matter so while many families might know it is not really an issue once the child is born. This treatment is very similar to many other potential genetic screening or genetic manipulation treatments so will probably get lost in the general noise. We have gene therapy treatments for rare diseases and this is a variation of that.

IVF costs the NHS so much IMO it should be entirely privately funded. It's not a life-limiting/impairing disease. For example, cataracts can cause visual problems and surgery can allow patients to continue living their lives. But being childless doesn't stop you from carrying on with daily activities. IMO IVF falls into the same boat as cosmetic surgery.

Having said that, I'm more opposed for IVF for couples where one already has children. There have been cases where the female partner has had children, each from different partners all done via IVF. Compare that to where you have those who struggle to even have one child.

WTF are they going to put on the birth certificates?

Yes but the problem is the cost that really would exclude all but the very rich.


In which case should we pay for cancer treatment? Wouldn't it also free up loads of under occupied private homes for youngsters to buy and finally get a step on the housing ladder. Also think of the pension savings long term and long term care needs if we scrap cancer treatment, and then the benefits cost would end much quicker, and be a significant economic boost to the undertaking and florist businesses.